It's time to wake up!

"On one level there is nothing wrong with stabbing yourself personally, on a relative level its better you dont. Agree?"
No.

I told you to give supporting evidence as to why you think so. Do it in your reply so I don't have to ask you a million times. So here we go again.. Why don't you agree with this?

But hey, you can stab yourself if you think there is nothing wrong with it.

It's a fallacy regardless of my understanding of it or not.

No, it is your understanding which labels it a fallacy.

originally posted by: Andy1144
I told you to give supporting evidence as to why you think so. Do it in your reply so I don't have to ask you a million times. So here we go again.. Why don't you agree with this?

Makes no difference why I might or might not agree with it. This whole new approach on your part was to take things one step at a time.

Whenever you stated something and I agreed you had no problem if I just gave a short answer. As soon as I disagree you want me to go into detail.

No, it is your understanding which labels it a fallacy.

No, you make a leap in logic. Everything you said (condensed)

1. Everything is processed in the brain.
2. Mental suffering is formed by thought.
3. All thoughts/discontents arise from a personality structure called which we can call ego. If there was no sense of self/personality/ego then there would be no discontent because it would have no place to arise from.

Here I pointed out that this is true for all emotions and that you can't single out discontentment.This isn't based on how I feel. This is based on logic.

You say it's a good point but say that there are two types of thoughts regarding being discontent.

Splitting discontenment into two types doesn't change the fact that the above three statements, made by you, apply to all emotions. You did what you usually do, state something true but irrelevant to try to prove your statement. That is a logical fallacy.

It makes no difference if I agree with you in general, I'm pointing out where your words and statements disagree with themselves.

a reply to: daskakik

Whenever you stated something and I agreed you had no problem if I just gave a short answer. As soon as I disagree you want me to go into detail.

Really now? Isn't it obvious when you agree with simple claims you don't need to explain why, but when you don't you need to explain? Anyway, please answer the question again with supporting evidence. I request you do this every time you disagree with me. I have told you this before, it's not like I didn't.

Here I pointed out that this is true for all emotions and that you can't single out discontentment.This isn't based on how I feel. This is based on logic.

I took that as an example, it applies to all emotions without exception.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Really now? Isn't it obvious when you agree with simple claims you don't need to explain why, but when you don't you need to explain? Anyway, please answer the question again with supporting evidence. I request you do this every time you disagree with me. I have told you this before, it's not like I didn't.

The whole second part of the post does just that.

I took that as an example, it applies to all emotions without exception.

Since my point is that it applies to all emotions, what where you arguing about?

I still don't see how you answered this question
''"On one level there is nothing wrong with stabbing yourself personally, on a relative level its better you dont. Agree?"
No. "

Please answer why you don't agree.

Do you agree that it is better to be compassionate then be a killer?

Here I pointed out that this is true for all emotions and that you can't single out discontentment.This isn't based on how I feel. This is based on logic.

What is the thing that is true about emotions you are talking about here?

a reply to: Andy1144

The bad form of discontent is rooted in the idea that this moment could have been different that it already is, so then thoughts of anguish arise, because this moment is not what one wanted it to be.

Yes, you can still think about "If I did this, then this would not happen" That thought is a useful way we can use our past to learn about the future, but the idea that one must reject and be negatively discontent with whatever is happening, is unnecessary and redundant.

In this dream there seems to be some sort of consistency - physics for example, if a ball is let go in mid air it drops down, if a hand is put in the fire it hurts - pulling away happens.
But it cannot be known what will happen tomorrow in a situation but the mind (thoughts) will try to prepare for that event and might wonder how I will be and how other people will be, how I should be and how I have seen this particular situation before and how it went and how it could be - basically the mind is trying to make everything ok. But the mind, the thoughts cannot actually do anything but keep presenting options - it gives a good positive play out and you feel ok, relieved, uplifted maybe, even proud that you worked it all out - everything is rosy - but then suddenly it shows you how it can go terribly wrong something was just realized, you feel deflated and fearful, even down on yourself for being so stupid - the mind flip flops , watch it and see. The body gets a download of fear and anxiety ever time thoughts start presenting past or future happenings - it is not actually happening but the body still releases the hormones needed in the situations - that are not happening.
The cure is to see that it is not happening - don't go to the mind and you will always be where the happening really is.
There is nothing to flip flop here. There is no 'If I did this that would happen or if I did that then this might happen'.
Doing is seen to be happening. The body moves or words come out and the idea that 'I moved, I spoke' - is the story - that I did it.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Please answer why you don't agree.

Do you agree that it is better to be compassionate then be a killer?

I answered all those types of questions when I agreed to your comment about bad just being a concept.

You agreed that bad is just a concept and logically "better or worse" which stem from something being "good or bad" are also just concepts. If you agree with the former then, you have to agree with the latter.

I already pointed out earlier that it is at this point where you want to stick a "but" on your agreement. Nothing wrong with that but you say you understand and agree with my point so why do you keep asking me to explain?

What is the thing that is true about emotions you are talking about here?

The thing that you mentioned in your post.

Can't you follow the flow of the thread?

3. All thoughts/discontents arise from a personality structure called which we can call ego. If there was no sense of self/personality/ego then there would be no discontent because it would have no place to arise from.

Here I pointed out that this is true for all emotions and that you can't single out discontentment.

I took that as an example, it applies to all emotions without exception.

Since my point is that it applies to all emotions, what where you arguing about?

What is the thing that is true about emotions you are talking about here?

a reply to: daskakik

You agreed that bad is just a concept and logically "better or worse" which stem from something being "good or bad" are also just concepts. If you agree with the former then, you have to agree with the latter.

I already pointed out earlier that it is at this point where you want to stick a "but" on your agreement. Nothing wrong with that but you say you understand and agree with my point so why do you keep asking me to explain?

It's because I only agree with your point on one level, your explanation doesn't show the full picture. For example, your point only addresses that there isn't anything wrong with better or worse experiences, but that doesn't say anything about concepts which describe what are ways we can have better experiences. Just because there is nothing wrong with anything doesn't mean we don't strive to have better experiences. It's better I be compassionate then a killer yes?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Absolutely, but one can still learn from his mistakes without identifying with them so he will have less chances of repeating them again, or not.

originally posted by: Andy1144
It's because I only agree with your point on one level,

That is the level that I am talking about. I don't have to agree to your idea of another level. That is for you to prove, which you have not.

An illusion isn't real so logically the better or worse within that illusion is also not real. To someone suffering from mental illness, seeing MIB out to kill him might be very real but, you can't prove that it is real.

Real to the person having the experience negates the first claim, which is why I said that you want to have it both ways. Logically, you can't.

Personally you can split your view of the world in as many parts as you like. In the end you have to pose a convincing argument for your claims and not the other way around.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Hyperbole to prove the point.

I had lunch waiting for my wife. Something popped up and she was taken to lunch by a family member.

Just like you pointed out, I tried to prepare for the future but the future didn't go as planned.

So far your theory pans out but, I'm not deflated and fearful, even down on myself for being so stupid.

You don't need to realize being to brush most of this stuff off.

Someone with legit mental health issues isn't going to have their problems solved by watching youtube videos of people talking about living in the now.

a reply to: daskakik

That is the level that I am talking about. I don't have to agree to your idea of another level. That is for you to prove, which you have not.

It's impossible for me to prove my claim to you if your requirements for evidence stop at your level.

An illusion isn't real so logically the better or worse within that illusion is also not real. To someone suffering from mental illness, seeing MIB out to kill him might be very real but, you can't prove that it is real.

This only deals with one level. The level that everything is an illusion and nothing matters. And while this is true on one level it doesn't make it completely irrelevant. Why? Because the experience of the illusion is real, it on some level it matters.
The experience of the illusion is real, so it matters whether conscious people experience better experiences then not.
I think your arguments deal with, we can't know anything for sure. I can't know if my neighbor is real or he could be a simulation. On that level we can't know anything for sure other then that we are aware.

originally posted by: Andy1144
It's impossible for me to prove my claim to you if your requirements for evidence stop at your level.

But you could make a compeling argument. You have not even done that.

This only deals with one level.

You are missing the point.

If level 1 is reality and everything else is illusion, then that means that you can't also claim that Level 2 is real.

Every other argument that you posted is irrelevant to the logic at work.

Too all that mess you have to add the fact that, even at the personal experience, good and bad are still just concepts which will change from person to person.

You can't come up with a definite idea of what is better or worse.

One step further, all this, like itisnowagain's post above, is premised on the idea that people are in anguish because they think. That premise has not been substantiated.

a reply to: daskakik

But you could make a compeling argument. You have not even done that.

Apparently I can't because you still would label it as wrong because it doesn't fit your requirement, which I will be speaking more about. I can't prove anything to be an absolute truth but the fact that I am aware. By your standards I can only make relative claims which you don't accept because you only deal with the absolute. I can't possibly find convincing evidence under these circumstances.

You are missing the point.
If level 1 is reality and everything else is illusion, then that means that you can't also claim that Level 2 is real.

Now this is the core issue here, so let's stick to this point.

On the absolute level, all is an illusion, all that I know is that I am aware. And this is true for the relative level as well.

But I will say this more time, it's all an illusion but it is a real illusion. This is the paradox which you can't seem to get.
I still understand your point though. If everything is an illusion and that is an absolute fact then the relative is also an illusion. It is, but the experience of the illusion is real, so one must still strive to have a better experience although it is an illusion. This isn't so complicated.
Yes if it's all an illusion then the relative is an illusion as well. But it matters because it appears to be real and forms a real experience.

How do you function? Don't you try to do things which give you more pleasure instead of those which don't? If yes then why? Isn't it all an illusion? Answer this.

Also, let me show you one more paradox. If you can't know anything, then can you know you don't know?

One step further, all this, like itisnowagain's post above, is premised on the idea that people are in anguish because they think. That premise has not been substantiated.

That's an overly simplistic interpretation and shows you don't know the full variables that play in hand here. There are certain thoughts which cause negative thinking and some which don't. All thinking isn't the cause of it. It's certain thoughts, don't over generalize things.

The point is that one does not need the negative thoughts to function, they only get in the way. Negative thoughts are redundant.

Also, it is stupid to deny the relative even though it is ultimately untrue. We appear to have bodies, we need food and we seek the most pleasurable experience(illusion) Why? Because on some level it does matter, that's why you personally pursue the best experience possible. Although it is an illusion, you still desire this because there is still some form of validity in it. The experience is real.
You can't have desire if everything is an illusion. Do you have preferences? If yes then why? Does none of this matter? And don't say you already mentioned this, please reply again.

originally posted by: Andy1144
By your standards I can only make relative claims which you don't accept because you only deal with the absolute.

This is where you are missing the major point.

It isn't about me. You first claim was absolute so you can't make relative claims because they negate your original claim.

So, you can't have it both ways.

Now this is the core issue here, so let's stick to this point.

On the absolute level, all is an illusion, all that I know is that I am aware. And this is true for the relative level as well.

Logic, not me, says that you can't have it both ways. Twist it any way you need to satisfy yourself but anyone applying logic will come to the same conclusion

That's an overly simplistic interpretation and shows you don't know the full variables that play in hand here. There are certain thoughts which cause negative thinking and some which don't. All thinking isn't the cause of it. It's certain thoughts, don't over generalize things.

The point is that one does not need the negative thoughts to function, they only get in the way. Negative thoughts are redundant.

That isn't what I took away from DE or itisnowagain's posts.

You are obviously talking about something different to what they address.

Also, it is stupid to deny the relative even though it is ultimately untrue.

This sentence says it all.

I never said it wasn't real, I said that you first claim said that it was unreal.

That is why I keep saying that it isn't about me. I am only reminding you what that claim was and how logic must be used to maintain the truth in that claim.

When you start claiming that a better experience makes a difference you debase your first claim. To claim both as true is illogical.

a reply to: daskakik

This is where you are missing the major point.
It isn't about me. You first claim was absolute so you can't make relative claims because they negate your original claim.
So, you can't have it both ways.

You still dont get the paradox. I can't have it both ways on the absolute. If something is absolute, then boom, it renders the relative completely meaningless. But the point is that although the relative doesn't have any absolute validity, we can pretend it does in order to function because it has relative implications.

Logic, not me, says that you can't have it both ways. Twist it any way you need to satisfy yourself but anyone applying logic will come to the same conclusion

Your logic. I understand you say that you're simply finding contradiction in my own claim but it has to contradict, not because I twist it to make my point but that's the way it is. My words have to contradict here, and it's not like I am using this as a dumb excuse, but I have explained why they do.

To claim both as true is illogical.

Because truth can only be one. But just because there is one truth and everything else is an illusion doesn't mean the illusion doesn't have relative importance. Why do you keep on ignoring this? It does not have absolute validity because it is untrue, both ways. On the relative we need to pretend the illusion is real because the experience of it is real.
Your logic is very narrowly focused on one side of the coin.

Another paradox which is true I mentioned was, if you can't know anything, can you know that you don't know? In this sentence, it is an absolute fact that i don't know anything, yet I do know that I do not know. Is this illogical to you?

Also, instead of just focusing on my claims, can you please make some of your own?

Please read these carefully as it addresses the idea of contradiction perfectly.

nobodysnotes.com...

nobodysnotes.com...

Also, I can make an absolute claim saying that the absolute truth is this moment. Now since this is absolute it renders thoughts about past and future as illusions. They are illusions. Does that mean you completely disregard them? On one level yes, on the other, I don't think so, you plan and think but all the while know it is an illusion. You live in the moment as the unchanging center of your experience and simply pretend that there is past and future because it is useful, just all the while knowing it isn't ultimately real. This isn't too complicated to grasp.

You guys need Avatars..

dp